4 ms·

Quoting from the response: a 44% wealth share for the top 10% (and a 12.5% wealth share for the top 1%, according to the FT) would mean that Britain is current

by adwhit 12y ago

Quoting from the response: a 44% wealth share for the top 10% (and a 12.5% wealth share for the top 1%, according to the FT) would mean that Britain is currently one the most egalitarian countries in history in terms of wealth distribution; in particular this would mean that Britain is a lot more equal that Sweden, and in fact a lot more equal than what Sweden as ever been (including in the 1980s). This does not look particularly plausible Shame on the FT.

Malarkey73 12y ago
And they only picked that method for recent years so inequality is declining in Britain? Through Thatcher and Blair years??? Right.
bjelkeman-again 12y ago
Having lived both in Sweden and in Britain you don't even need data to know this isn't very plausible. That said, Sweden is getting a bigger gap between the highest earners and the lowest at a fast rate. "the most equal country in the world is becoming less so." -The Economist http://www.economist.com/node/21564412 http://www.economist.com/node/21564412
- bobcostas55 12y ago
  You're confusing stocks with flows. Wealth inequality and income inequality are completely different things, and Sweden being more unequal than the UK does not seem at all implausible. Here's one paper from a few years ago showing exactly that result: http://darp.lse.ac.uk/papersdb/Cowell_(Hills_Wealth_UK).pdf http://darp.lse.ac.uk/papersdb/Cowell_(Hills_Wealth_UK).pdf
hsksn78728 12y ago
Is this a joke? The UK's own Office for National Statistics derived that 44% figure, not the FT. Shame on you.
- gress 12y ago
  Shame on you for your appeal to authority. The question is do the statistics support Piketty's interpretation or not. Not who generated them.
  - hsksn78728 12y ago
    The FT is citing figures from the UK's official records. Shame on the FT for citing statistics that run counter to Piketty's own figures (which he asserted was 71%)? Wow.
  - agarcia-deniz 12y ago
    The point is that the FT switched from one type of data to another, as per usual truth is probably somewhere in the middle, which would probably still back up Mr Picketty's analysis. As many people have said, is the UK one of the most equal societies in the world? This seems very unlikely
svantana 12y ago
Particularly the "12.5% for the top 1%" is ridiculous and obviously too low for any modern, capital-intensive, non-socialist society. The FT should know this from their Economics 101, but it seems their main objective here was to discredit Piketty...

by adwhit 12y ago

Malarkey73 12y ago

And they only picked that method for recent years so inequality is declining in Britain? Through Thatcher and Blair years??? Right.

bjelkeman-again 12y ago

Having lived both in Sweden and in Britain you don't even need data to know this isn't very plausible. That said, Sweden is getting a bigger gap between the highest earners and the lowest at a fast rate. "the most equal country in the world is becoming less so." -The Economist http://www.economist.com/node/21564412 http://www.economist.com/node/21564412

bobcostas55 12y ago
You're confusing stocks with flows. Wealth inequality and income inequality are completely different things, and Sweden being more unequal than the UK does not seem at all implausible. Here's one paper from a few years ago showing exactly that result: http://darp.lse.ac.uk/papersdb/Cowell_(Hills_Wealth_UK).pdf http://darp.lse.ac.uk/papersdb/Cowell_(Hills_Wealth_UK).pdf

hsksn78728 12y ago

Is this a joke? The UK's own Office for National Statistics derived that 44% figure, not the FT. Shame on you.

gress 12y ago
Shame on you for your appeal to authority. The question is do the statistics support Piketty's interpretation or not. Not who generated them.
- hsksn78728 12y ago
  The FT is citing figures from the UK's official records. Shame on the FT for citing statistics that run counter to Piketty's own figures (which he asserted was 71%)? Wow.
- agarcia-deniz 12y ago
  The point is that the FT switched from one type of data to another, as per usual truth is probably somewhere in the middle, which would probably still back up Mr Picketty's analysis. As many people have said, is the UK one of the most equal societies in the world? This seems very unlikely

svantana 12y ago

Particularly the "12.5% for the top 1%" is ridiculous and obviously too low for any modern, capital-intensive, non-socialist society. The FT should know this from their Economics 101, but it seems their main objective here was to discredit Piketty...